DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 are presented.
Claim 1 is presented in independent form and is amended.
Dependent claims 2, 5, and 7 are amended.
Claims 8-9 remain withdrawn.
The present Office action treats claims 1-7 and 10-12 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks of 04/20/2026 (see p. 5-9 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (p. 5): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon further review of the present disclosure, the amended claims and Applicant’s remarks (see p. 5), the 35 USC 112 rejection as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 (p. 5-9): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Nishiwaki, US 2009/0113758, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Nishiwaki discloses (Figs. 1-7):
A sole structure 1, 2, 3, 4 (i.e. the combined “upper mid sole 1, a reinforcing member 2, a lower mid sole 3 and an outer sole 4”; para 178) comprising:
a midsole 1;
a first support 21 which is formed in a plate shape (“bar 21 is provided in a strip shape” (para 185) such that it is in a plate shape; see also Figs. 1B, 3-5, 6A-6B, and 7); which is provided in a midfoot region 12 of the midsole; and which is disposed along a lower surface of the midsole (para 181; Figs. 1-7);
a second support (see annotated Fig. 3 – a below); which is disposed behind the first support (Figs. 1-7); and which is provided on a side portion of the midsole (Figs. 1-7); and
an outsole 3, 4 (i.e. the combined 3 and 4) disposed in contact with a lower surface of the first support (Fig. 6B),
wherein the first support 21 is configured to be in contact with a ground surface via the outsole (Figs. 1B, 5, 6B) in a foot-flat phase during running (the sole structure when in the configuration of Figs. 1B, 5, 6B is capable of being provided onto a ground surface while running with a wearer’s foot being flat such that the limitation is met).
PNG
media_image1.png
1065
991
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nishiwaki does not expressly disclose the first support 21 is firmer than the midsole.
Nishiwaki does not expressly disclose the second support is firmer than the midsole.
However and in further view of Nishiwaki:
Nishiwaki teaches the member 2 which comprises the first support and the second support is a “reinforcing member (connecting member[]) (para 133)” which is “for reinforcing...the mid sole, and the Young’s modulus of the reinforcing member 2 is greater than that of the mid sole...material...may be...a non-foamed resin, a polyurethane or an FRP” (para 183). Nishiwaki further teaches the member 2 is a “hard connecting member” (paras 82, 102) wherein the midsole in the “mid foot part...and the rear foot part” (para 220) is “capable of being compressively deformed by an impact upon landing to...absorb the impact” (para 220).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the sole structure of Nishiwaki such that its first support is firmer than its midsole and its second support is firmer than its midsole in order to yield the predictable result the midsole being able to be deformed by impact upon loading via compressive deformation further wherein the first support and the second support provide reinforcement for the midsole by virtue of their being less compressively deformed by impact upon loading when the midsole is impacted upon.
Regarding claim 2:
Nishiwaki teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Nishiwaki further discloses wherein the midsole includes a rim (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – b below) formed higher than a region configured to receive a foot sole placed thereon (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – b below), and the second support includes an inner section (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – b below) extending from an inner side of the first support (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – b below) backward along an inner side of the rim (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – b below) in a foot width direction (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
923
1752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nishiwaki Figs. 1-7 does not disclose the inner section being formed higher than the region configured to receive the foot sole placed thereon.
However and in further view of Nishiwaki:
Nishiwaki Figs. 11-13 teaches a second support 28 includes an inner section (see annotated Fig. 11A – c below) being formed higher than a region configured to receive the foot sole placed thereon (see annotated Fig. 11A – c below).
PNG
media_image3.png
512
849
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Nishiwaki such that the inner section being formed higher than the region configured to receive the foot sole placed thereon, as in Nishiwaki Figs. 11-13, in order to yield the predictable result of a sole structure whose second support is capable of providing additional reinforcement to the midsole in an area of the midsole between the region configured to receive the foot sole placed thereon and the second support.
Regarding claim 3:
Nishiwaki teaches The sole structure of claim 2, as set forth above.
Nishiwaki further discloses wherein the second support further includes an outer section (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – d below) extending from an outer side of the first support (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – d below) backward along an outer side of the midsole (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – d below) in the foot width direction (Figs. 1-7).
PNG
media_image4.png
923
1752
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
Nishiwaki teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Nishiwaki does not expressly disclose wherein the first support is provided in the midfoot region and a forefoot region of the midsole.
Rather, in Nishiwaki, the first support is provided in the midfoot region.
However and in further view of Nishiwaki:
In Nishiwaki in describing a “known show sole structure with a reinforcing member, or the like” (para 2) teaches a “shoe sole, in which a reinforcing member is provided so as to extend from the fore foot part to the rear foot part. The reinforcing member includes a rod-shaped portion elongated in the front-rear direction extending from the fore foot part to the rear foot part” (para 7).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Nishiwaki such that its first support is provided in the midfoot region and a forefoot region of the midsole in order to yield the predictable result of a show which is capable of providing reinforcement in both the midfoot region and also the forefoot region.
Regarding claim 5:
Nishiwaki teaches The sole structure of claim 2, as set forth above.
Nishiwaki further discloses wherein the second support extends backward and upward in a progressive manner (Figs. 4-7).
Nishiwaki Figs. 1-7 does not disclose and an uppermost portion of the second support is located above the rim of the midsole.
However and in further view of Nishiwaki:
Nishiwaki Figs. 11-13 teaches an uppermost portion of a second support (see annotated Fig. 13B – e below) is located above a rim of a midsole (see annotated Fig. 13B – e below).
PNG
media_image5.png
526
1590
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Nishiwaki further teaches “When one runs, a foot lands on the lateral side of the heel and then the foot falls toward the medial side. Thus, the lateral side of the heel receives a substantial impact upon landing. Therefore, if the lateral side of the rear foot part of the shoe sole deforms substantially, a high shock-absorbing function is fulfilled. In order to suppress the fall of the foot toward the medial side, the medial side of the rear foot part of the shoe sole can be made less deformable to thereby provide a high holding function. Thus, there are cases where the degree of deformation due to impact is preferably varied between the medial side and the lateral side of a foot” (para 22)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Nishiwaki such that an uppermost portion of the second support is located above the rim of the midsole, as in Nishiwaki Fig. 13B, in order to make the side of the rear foot part on which the uppermost portion of the second support is located above the rim of the midsole less deformable than if the uppermost portion of the second support were not located above the rim of the midsole to provide a preferable degree of deformation due to impact between medial and lateral sides and/or to provide high holding function, as suggested by Nishiwaki (para 22).
Regarding claim 6:
Nishiwaki teaches The sole structure of claim 2, as set forth above.
Nishiwaki further discloses wherein the midsole includes a side portion (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – f below) provided with a recess (see annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – f below) which is formed in a groove shape (as in annotated Figs. 4 and 6-7 – f below) and which extends backward from the first support (Figs. 5-7), and the second support is disposed on the recess (Figs. 5-7).
PNG
media_image6.png
923
1752
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10:
Nishiwaki teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Nishiwaki further meets the limitation A shoe (the shoe of Figs. 1A-1B; no specific numeral provided therefor) comprising: the sole structure of claim 1; and an upper (that element of the shoe above the sole structure in Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 11:
Nishiwaki teaches The sole structure of claim 2, as set forth above.
The modified Nishiwaki further meets the limitation A shoe (the shoe of Figs. 1A-1B; no specific numeral provided therefor) comprising: the sole structure of claim 2; and an upper (that element of the shoe above the sole structure in Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 12:
Nishiwaki teaches The sole structure of claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Nishiwaki further meets the limitation A shoe (the shoe of Figs. 1A-1B; no specific numeral provided therefor) comprising: the sole structure of claim 3; and an upper (that element of the shoe above the sole structure in Fig. 1A).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Nishiwaki, US 2009/0113758] and [Elder, US 2015/0013185, newly cited].
Regarding claim 7:
Nishiwaki teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Nishiwaki does not expressly disclose further comprising: a support plate which is disposed along an upper surface of the first support and which is more solid than the first support.
Elder teaches (para 94; Figs. 9A-9C) a support plate 350 disposed along an upper surface of a first support 354 (354 is a “bottom layer...[]molded on” a “side[]” of layer 350; para 94) and is more solid than the first support (“harder and stiffer than...material(s) of...bottom layer 354”; para 94).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Nishiwak such that it further comprises a support plate which is disposed along an upper surface of the first support and which is more solid than the first support in order to yield the predictable result of a sole structure that is configured to provide additional reinforcement via the combined support plate and first support as opposed to a sole structure comprising only the first support.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights